The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests

Then where is the american textbook it talks about? Give me a post and a paragraph.

 

Are you not aware of history? Are you incapable of reading?

Ibn Ishaq's (d. 767) Sira ("Life of Muhammad"), the oldest biography of Muhammad

Waqidi's (d. circa. 820) Maghazi ("Military Campaigns [of the Prophet]")

Baladhuri's (d. 892) Futuh al-Buldan ("Conquests of the Nations")

Tabari's (d.923) multi-volume Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk, ("History of Prophets and Kings"), which is 40 volumes in the English translation.

 

Oh now I see. The US apparently existed in 892 CE. I'm asking for an American Textbook where and I quote from OP:

Meanwhile, as U.S. textbooks equivocate about the Muslim conquests, in the schoolrooms of the Muslim world, the conquests are not only taught as a matter of course, but are glorified

 

Ah, I see, you wish to spout nonsense posing as a discussion. FAIL.

 

Then explain to me how books written a thousand years ago equates to American textbooks.

 

Uh, it's called history you will not find in American textbooks. I would bet you still don't understand what "whitewashing" means.

 

Then give me a name of an american textbook that does this. I want to see it.

 

I think the onus is upon you for showing us where this is taught in American textbooks. After all, one cannot prove a negative.

 

So you are unable to produce a textbook?

 

Then you should have made that clear.

That covers just about everything you post here.

 

One cannot produce something that does not exist and that is the point called "whitewashing" but I doubt you will be able to understand.

 

So yes, you can't find it?

 

I was positive you were incapable of understanding. Thanks for proving it.

 

Interesting how so many on the far right are quick to condemn attacks by Muslims by ignore the facts as shown on my earlier post:

http://www.politicalforum.com/middl...eality-muslim-conquests-3.html#post1060954328


Millions died through these imperialistic attacks by people who claim to worship the Prince of Peace. And this list doesn't include the millions killed when England invaded the Indian subcontinent.

Why no criticism of these murderous campaigns???

 

Strawman fallacy. Try to stay on subject.

 

The burden of proof is yours. Find it. Otherwise, the OP's argument is null and void.

 

lol tell that to the 80 million Hindus and Buddhists who disappeared under Islamic occupation of the Indian Subcontinent between 1000 CE (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 CE (end of Delhi Sultanate) I guess they just floated off into space.

During Islamic rule of the Indian sub-continent

The Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent led to widespread carnage because Muslims regarded the Hindus as infidels and therefore slaughtered and converted millions of Hindus. Will Durant argued in his 1935 book "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage" (page 459):

“ The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period. ”​

There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Muslims.

As Braudel put it: "The levies it had to pay were so crushing that one catastrophic harvest was enough to unleash famines and epidemics capable of killing a million people at a time. Appalling poverty was the constant counterpart of the conquerors' opulence."

The backward castes of Hinduism suffered worst. Monarchs (belonging to backward castes) such as Khusrau Bhangi Khan, Hemchandra and Garha-Katanga were knocked off their throne and executed. Backward caste saints like Namadeva[1] were arrested, while women like Kanhopatra were forced to commit suicide. Ghisadis have an “Urdu” title.[2]

Prof. K.S. Lal, suggests a calculation in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India which estimates that between the years 1000 AD and 1500 AD the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. Even those Hindus who converted to Islam were not immune from persecution, which was illustrated by the Muslim Caste System in India as established by Ziauddin al-Barani in the Fatawa-i Jahandari.[3] where they were regarded as "Ajlaf" caste and subjected to severe discrimination by the "Ashraf" castes.[4]

By Arabs

Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent began during the early 8th century, when the Umayyad governor of Damascus, Hajjaj responded to a casus belli provided by the kidnapping of Muslim women and treasures by pirates off the coast of Debal,[5] by mobilizing an expedition of 6,000 cavalry under Muhammad bin-Qasim in 712 CE. Records from the campaign recorded in the Chach Nama record temple demolitions, and mass executions of resisting Sindhi forces and the enslavement of their dependents. This action was particularly extensive in Debal, of which Qasim is reported to have been under orders to make an example of while freeing both the captured women and the prisoners of a previous failed expedition. Bin Qasim then enlisted the support of the local Jat, Meds and Bhutto tribes and began the process of subduing and conquering the countryside. The capture of towns was also usually accomplished by means of a treaty with a party from among his "enemy", who were then extended special privileges and material rewards.[6] However, his superior Hajjaj reportedly objected to his method by saying that it would make him look weak and advocated a more hardline military strategy:[7]

“ It appears from your letter that all the rules made by you for the comfort and convenience of your men are strictly in accordance with religious law. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the law is different from the one adopted by you, for you go on giving pardon to everybody, high or low, without any discretion between a friend and a foe. The great God says in the Koran [47.4]: "0 True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man. ”​

In a subsequent communication, Hajjaj reiterated that all able-bodied men were to be killed, and that their underage sons and daughters were to be imprisoned and retained as hostages. Qasim obeyed, and on his arrival at the town of Brahminabad massacred between 6,000 and 16,000 of the defending forces.[8] The historian, Upendra Thakur records the persecution of Hindus and Buddhists:

“ When Muhammad Kasim invaded Sind in 711 AD, Buddhism had no resistance to offer to their fire and steel. The rosary could not be a match for the sword and the terms Love and Peace had no meaning to them. They carried fire and sword wherever they went and obliterated all that came their way. Muhammad triumphantly marched into the country, conquering Debal, Sehwan, Nerun, Brahmanadabad, Alor and Multan one after the other in quick succession, and in less than a year and a half, the far-flung Hindu kingdom was crushed, the great civilization fell back and Sind entered the darkest period of its history. There was a fearful outbreak of religious bigotry in several places and temples were wantonly desecrated. At Debal, the Nairun and Aror temples were demolished and converted into mosques.[Resistors] were put to death and women made captives. The Jizya was exacted with special care.[Hindus] were required to feed Muslim travellers for three days and three nights.[9] ​

”



Timur himself recorded the invasions in his memoirs, collectively known as Tuzk-i-Timuri.[21] In them, he vividly described the massacre at Delhi:

In a short space of time all the people in the [Delhi] fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground....All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.

One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives....on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and enemies of Islam at liberty...no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword.[22]​

According to Malfuzat-i-Timuri,[23] Timur targeted Hindus. In his own words, "Excepting the quarter of the saiyids, the 'ulama and the other Musalmans [sic], the whole city was sacked". In his descriptions of the Loni massacre he wrote, "..Next day I gave orders that the Musalman prisoners should be separated and saved."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

 

I just wanted to thank you for this most informative post... Best regards HB.

 

Well we can start with the fact that Iran was never invaded by the U.S., and that many of those countries were not invaded but became mandates after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and (especially by the British) were subsequently granted self governance and became nation-states with their own governments without even the need for wars of independence unlike the provinces they were under the auspices of the Ottoman Imperialists.

 

Yeah, hes a marvel at googling wikipedia.

 

I am sorry but there is no burden of proof for a nonsense question.

 

You mean for providing a textbook name? That burden is yours. Either prove it, or it's false.

 

Like I said, a nonsense question like that has no burden of proof. You are interested only in strawman fallacies and not in actual dialog. You make yourself irrelevant.

 

I don't care if you think it's nonsencial. You have the burden of proof of naming the textbook. Find it. Or you have no argument, only insults.

 

No insults, just fact.